International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Adherence to Treatment in Stroke Patients
Emmanouela Cheiloudaki 1 and Evangelos C. Alexopoulos 1,2, *
1 School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patra, Greece; litsachi@hotmail.com
2 Occupational Health Department, Metropolitan General Hospital, 15562 Athens, Greece
* Correspondence: ecalexop@med.uoa.gr




Received: 30 November 2018; Accepted: 10 January 2019; Published: 11 January 2019


Abstract: Background: Compliance with medication in patients who have suffered stroke is usually
not-optimal. This study aims to measure the level of compliance with the treatment and to identify
socio-demographic, clinical, and subjective factors related to the long-term compliance of stroke
patients with their treatment. Methods: 140 patients (66.4% males) suffered an ischemic stroke at
least six months old, participated in the survey. Compliance was measured using the Medication
Adherence Report Scale and the quality of life by the Stroke Specific Quality of Life questionnaire.
Furthermore, the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire
on perceptions about the disease were assessed. The doctor–patient relationship was assessed by
the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation questionnaire and the family support was assessed
by the FSS scale. Univariate and multivariate analysis was employed to identify the significant
factors affecting compliance in these stroke patients. Results: In 68.6% of patients the compliance
was classified as optimal, in 25.7% as partial and as poor in 5.7%; the last two categories were
treated as sub-optimal compliance in multivariate analysis. The high compliance was related to
patient’s mental state (OR:3.94 95% CI: 1.84–4.46), the perception medication necessity (OR:1.26 95%
CI: 1.01–1.56), and the doctor–patient communication (OR:1.76 95% CI: 1.15–2.70). Men showed a
lower compliance than women, as well as increased concerns about taking medication (OR: 0.83, 95%
CI: 0.69–0.99). Paradoxically, the work /productivity related quality of life was inversely associated
with compliance (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.23 to 0.82)). Conclusions: The perception of medication necessity
and the doctor–patient communication are manageable factors associated with compliance in treating
patients who have suffered stroke. In addition, rehabilitation and return to work programs should
consider these factors when providing support to those persons.

Keywords: stroke; recovery; return to work; rehabilitation; compliance; beliefs; Greece

1. Introduction
Stroke often leads to death or permanent disability, causing functional or neurological deficits
and affects the quality of life of both patients and their families [1,2]. Reduced cognitive function in
stroke patients has been associated with reduced ability in daily life. Returning to work and sustaining
employment emerge as key goals of rehabilitation and recovery by working-age stroke survivors.
Successful return to work after stroke is a major factor in the achievement of high subjective well-being
and life satisfaction [3,4].
Stroke related costs are enormous for patients, their families and the society and its rising
frequency constitutes a major challenge for health policymakers [5].
The control of the reversible risk factors like diabetes, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, smoking,
and hypertension reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. Effective tertiary
prevention is based on the strict application of the guidelines given by the doctor to the patient which
are mainly related to changes in lifestyle and specific medication [6]. However, studies have shown

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196; doi:10.3390/ijerph16020196 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 2 of 11

that secondary management of risk factors is not optimal [7]. Compliance with medication constitutes
a primary factor of treatment success since suboptimal compliance is a risk factor for secondary stroke
or even death [8].
The purpose of the study was to investigate the factors affecting the compliance to treatment of
patients who have suffered ischemic stroke. Several factors related to the patient, to his/her beliefs
about the disease and its treatment and his/her relationship with the doctor, were investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The survey was conducted in the neurology-neurosurgery outpatient clinic of the general
hospital of Chania, Crete, during a four-month period (November 2015–February 2016). All patients
visited the clinic during this period and fulfilling the eligibility criteria were asked to participate
in the study, by giving their informed consent. Eligibility criteria included: (1) Patients who have
suffered a first—non-hemorrhagic—stroke at least six months before the interview; (2) patients able
to communicate in the Greek language; and (3) patients mentally capable of giving consent and able
to comprehend and answer the questionnaire (e.g., patients with dementia and psychiatric disorders
were excluded). The research protocol was submitted and approved by both the Hospital Ethics
Committee and the Clinic director (Registration number: 16488/8-12-2015), under the conditions of
patients’ anonymity and confidentiality and the exclusive use of the study results for research purposes.
Participation was voluntary, the stress imposed on patients was limited to a minimum level, while not
disrupting the operation of the clinic. Following a brief interview to ensure eligibility and provision
of adequate information about the study, the questionnaires were completed by personal interview
with patients. From 208 eligible patients 140 agreed to participate (response rate 67.3%) and gave
their informed consent. The main reasons for refusals were reservations or fear and previous negative
experience on research participation.

2.2. Research Tools

2.2.1. MARS-5 Questionnaire (Medical Adherence Report Scale)

The MARS-5 questionnaire on the adherence to medication, is widely used in stroke patients [9]
asks respondents to rate the frequency of performing each of five behavioral aspects of non-compliance,
on a five-point scale with the options: always, often, sometimes, rarely, never. Each answer is
assigned the values 1 to 5 with: Always = 1, often = 2, sometimes = 3, seldom = 4, and never =
5. Scores are summed up to a scale ranging from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating higher
levels of patient compliance to treatment. In this research compliance under 23 were considered as
sub-optimal. However, we have used in a limited extent a trichotomized compliance variable by
dividing suboptimal compliance category in two levels: partial compliance (i.e., MARS-5 score 20–23)
and poor or no compliance (i.e., MARS-5 score below 23). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.650.

2.2.2. Stroke Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (SS-QOL)

The questionnaire has been extensively used to assess the quality of life in various sub-groups
of patients who have suffered stroke and is validated in Greek language [10,11]. The scale consists
of 49 questions assess the quality of life of patients with stroke during the last week, including
physical, emotional, and social aspects of life. The questions (q) are grouped into 12 sectors and
concerns: personal care (SC, 5q), vision (V, 3q), speech (L, 5q), mobility (M, 6q), work/productivity
(W, 3q), upper limb function (UE, 5q), mental status (T, 3q), personality (P, 3q), mood (MD, 5q), family
participation (FR, 3q), social participation (SR, 5q), and energy (E, 3q). The options in each of the 49
questions depends on the problem level and the rating scale ranges from 1.0 (worst quality of life)
to 5.0 (optimum quality of life). The total score is calculated as the average score of the individual
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 3 of 11

sectors and values less than 4.2 are associated with a significant reduction in quality of life after
stroke. The Cronbach coefficients were quite high for all subscales and total SSQOL: SSQOL-SC:
0.927, SSQOL-V: 0.851, SSQOL-L: 0.974, SSQOL-SSQOL-M: 0.908, SSQOL-W; 0.935, SSQOL-UE: 0.955,
SSQOL-T: 0.827, SSQOL-P: 0.835, SSQOL-MD: 0.774, SSQOL-FR: 0.843, SSQOL-SR: 0.909, SSQOL-E:
0.938, SSQOL-TOTAL: 0.970.

2.2.3. Julkunen Family Support Scale (FSS)

The scale of family support is intended to record the perceived support a person receives from his
family and has been validated and used widely in Greece [12,13]. It consists of 13 items (seven are
scored inversely) in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher
score corresponds to an increased perceived family support. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.772. Because
the scale is intended for people living with or in very close proximity with their family, people who
live alone handled as missing values in our analysis.

2.2.4. Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ)

The questionnaire assesses cognitive representations of patients about their medication [14]
and has been validated in Greek language version [15]. It consists of two parts: (a) a specific part
which assesses the beliefs of patients about the medicines prescribed for their personal use, and (b) a
general part which assesses beliefs about medicines in general. In this study only, the specific part
was used. The specific part consists of two subscales; five questions assess patients’ beliefs on the
necessity of prescribed medication and six questions assess their concerns about possible negative
effects. Respondents indicate the degree of agreement with each statement in a five-point Likert scale
where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree and the rating sum ranges from 5 to 25 for the
first subscale and from 6 to 30 for the second one. The higher scores indicating stronger beliefs on the
concepts (necessity and concerns) represented by each subscale. The Cronbach’s alpha values were
low for the dimension of necessity (0.560) and high for the dimension of concerns (0.779); for the whole
specific part was 0.695.

2.2.5. Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ)

The BIPQ questionnaire is related to the perceptions of patients about ill-health and is the short
version of the Revised Illness Perceptions Questionnaire [16,17]. It is designed to test cognitive and
emotional ideas about the disease, describing the process by which individuals respond to a perceived
threat to health. 5 questions test the effects of cognitive dimensions of disease (IPQ1- Consequences,
IPQ2-Timeline of Disease, IPQ3-Personal Check, IPQ4-Therapeutic Monitoring, IPQ5-Identity) and the
remaining three the emotional ones (IPQ6-Concern, IPQ7-Consistency, IPQ8-Emotional Effect). Each
question rated from 0 to 10. The total score ranges from 8–80 while questions 3, 4, and 7 are calculated
by a reverse scale [16]. An open-ended ninth question asks the respondent to indicate the three most
important factors he/she believes has caused his/her illness. This questionnaire has been validated in
Greek language [18].

2.2.6. CS-SRM Questionnaire

The patient-doctor relationship and communication were tested with the CS-SRM questionnaire
which assess whether doctors provide patients with the appropriate information to fully understand
their illness and treatment [19]. The questionnaire consists of seven questions refer to specific domain
of representations of the disease: causes, identification, timing, control and consequences. The scores
are 1 for yes/agree, 0 for no/disagree, and a non-rating option of “do not know” or “not applicable”.
The total score ranging from 0–7, with higher scores indicating good communication between doctor
and patient [20]. The Cronbach alpha value was 0.561.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 4 of 11

2.3. Statistical Methods

The mean and standard deviation were used to describe the continuous variables while the
frequency and the % frequency were used for discrete variables. Pearson chi square test was
used to test the association between discrete variables and independent samples t-test was used
for continuous variables comparison between two groups or the one-way ANOVA for more than two
groups comparison. Univariate logistic regression was used to assess crude’s Odds ratios and multiple
logistic regression was applied to estimate the weighted OR ratios (adjusted OR). OR is related to per
point increase of the independent variable scale. In this research, we have used compliance mainly as
dichotomized variable but in a limited extent a trichotomized variable was entered a univariate analysis
to explore if the trends are constant as a kind of sensitivity analysis. So, optimal compliance is the
same both in dichotomized and trichotomized variable (i.e., MARS-5 scores 14 or 25). In dichotomized
variable sub-optimal compliance include all scores below 24. In trichotomized variable scores 20–23
were considered as partial compliance while scores below 20 as poor or no compliance. The statistical
analysis was done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results
The study sample consisted of 140 patients who have suffered a first ischemic stroke. 93 (66.4%),
were male, 16 (11.4%) were living alone and 52 (37.1%) were smokers. The mean age of patients was
64.2 (± 9.0) years old with an age range of 35–79 years (Table 1). Out of the 16 people who living alone,
four had no children, 2 had children in other city and 10 in the same city. 52 (37.1%) patients, were
current smokers, more among males compared to females (p = 0.055). Age and education did not differ
significantly between men and women but more women (23.4%) were living alone compared with
men (5.4%, p = 0.002).

Table 1. Patients characteristics.

Males Females All

Study Variable (n = 93) (n = 47) (n = 140)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD p
Age (years) 65.1 8.5 62.3 9.7 64.2 9.0 0.088
Number of children 2.3 1.9 2.1 1.0 2.3 1.1 0.222
n % n % n %
Living status
Living alone 5 5.4 11 23.4 16 11.4 0.002
Living with others 88 94.6 36 76.6 124 88.6
Children residence
Same house 15 17.4 4 9.3 19 14.7 0.436
Same city 64 74.4 36 83.7 100 77.5
Another city 7 8.1 3 7.0 10 7.8
Education
Primary 37 39.8 23 48.9 60 42.9 0.388
Secondary 36 38.7 18 38.3 54 38.6
Higher 20 21 6 12.8 26 18.6
Smoker
Current 38 40 14 29.8 52 37.1 0.055
Never 30 32 25 53.2 55 39.3
Ex- 25 26 8 17.0 33 23.6
Support in medication
Never 67 72 36 76.6 103 73.6 0.564
Always/sometimes 26 28 11 23.4 37 26.4

The median number of daily medicines was 4, ranging from 1–12 drugs. In the present study,
73.6% of patients reported no support in taking their medication while 37 patients were supported;
mainly by their spouse (70.3%). Females hold mainly the role of the caregiver (88.5%) compared to
men (27.3%, p < 0.001) (Table 1). The mean compliance score (MARS-5 scale) was 23.7 (± 2.1), the
minimum score was 10 and 96 patients (68.6%) were considered as optimally compliant.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 5 of 11

The quality of life total score (SSQOL scale) was on average 4.3 (± 0.7) with a range from 2 to
4.9. The higher mean values were reported for vision related subscale (4.7), self-care (4.7), the upper
limb function (4.5) and speech (4.5). The lower values recorded in the social participation (3.9), energy
(3.9), and personality (3.4) SS-QOL subscales. The family support total score (FSS scale) ranged from
27–64 with a mean of 59.6 and a median of 61.0. Concerning respondents’ beliefs on the three most
important factors causing their illness anxiety, unhappiness and hypertension were reported followed
by diabetes, thrombophilia, and lifestyle. The mean score of perceived necessity of medication was
18.8 (range 5–25) and of the perceived concerns 11.1 (range 6–30). In perceptions of respondents about
their illness (IPQ) the largest average value was monitored in the therapeutic control scale (8.2 ± 1.7)
following by personal control (7.5 ± 1.6) and consistency (7.0 ± 1.6) scales. The perception of the
doctor patient relationship as perceived by the patient CS-SMR questionnaire was high (mean 5.9 and
a median of 6.0) (Table 2).

Table 2. Study variables and its relationship with compliance.

All Patients Compliance

Study Variable Suboptimal Optimal
n % n % p
Gender (m/f) 93/47 29/15 31.2/31.9 64/32 68.8/68.1 NS
Living with others/alone 124/16 35/9 28.2/56.3 89/7 71.8/43.8 0.023
Educational level (higher/lower) 26/114 5/39 19.2/34.2 21/75 80.8/65.8 NS *
Current smoker (no/yes) 88/52 27/17 30.7/32.7 61/35 69.3/67.3 NS
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age (y) 64.2 9.0 63.8 10.1 64.3 8.5 NS
Disease duration (y) 4.8 5.2 3.3 3.2 0.048
SSQOL
Self-care (SC) 4.7 0.7 4.8 0.5 4.6 0.7 NS
Vision (V) 4.7 0.6 4.5 0.8 4.8 0.4 0.012
Language (L) 4.5 0.9 4.5 0.8 4.5 0.9 NS
Mobility (M) 4.2 0.9 4.4 0.6 4.1 1.0 0.125
Work/Productivity (W) 4.1 1.0 4.3 0.7 4.0 1.1 0.111
Upper Extremity function (UE) 4.5 0.9 4.7 0.6 4.5 0.9 NS
Thinking (T) 4.2 1.0 3.6 1.1 4.4 0.8 <0.001
Personality (P) 3.4 1.1 3.2 1.2 3.5 1.1 0.169
Mood (MD) 4.3 0.7 4.2 0.9 4.4 0.7 0.164
Family roles (FR) 4.4 0.9 4.3 1.1 4.5 0.9 NS
Social roles (SR) 3.9 1.0 3.8 1.0 4.0 1.0 NS
Energy (E) 3.9 1.2 3.6 1.4 4.0 1.1 0.119
All subscales 4.3 0.7 4.2 0.7 4.3 0.7 NS
FSS 59.6 5.1 58.2 8.0 60.2 3.2 0.080
BMQ Necessity 18.8 2.8 18.0 3.7 19.1 2.3 0.038
BMQ Concern 11.1 4.3 12.6 4.6 10.4 3.9 0.004
IPQ 39.0 11.7 39.8 10.7 38.6 12.2 NS
CS-CRM 5.9 1.3 5.07 1.48 6.29 1.08 <0.001
In bold: p < 0.05; NS: p > 0.20; * educational level had three subcategories.

In the univariate analysis of the relation of socio-demographic and disease duration on compliance,
living status was of importance (OR: 3.27, 95% CI: 1.13 to 9.46). 56.3% of patients living alone did
not comply optimally compared to others (28.2%). This is anticipated to partially capture the relation
with the marital status. Compliance was also related to disease duration. Compliant patients had
significantly less mean illness duration of 3.3 years compared with the non-compliant ones (4.8 years).
Gender, age, the number of children, educational level, smoking status, support in taking medication,
did not found to be significantly related with compliance (Table 2).
Compliance was related to sight subscale of quality of life related (OR (95% CI): 2.30 (1.20 to
4.43)) and the mental state subscale OoL (OR (95% CI): 2.49 (1.64 to 3.79)) (Table 2). Compliance had a
borderline significant with the family support scale (OR (95% CI): 1.07 (0.99–1.16)) and the perceived
necessity and concerns scales of medication (BMQ) with ORs (95% CI) of 1.14 (1.01 to 1.30) and 0.89
(0.82 to 0.97), respectively (Table 2). The physician–patient communication (CS-SRM scale) showed
also significant relation to compliance (OR (95% CI): 2.11 (1.50–2.96)) (Table 2).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 6 of 11

As previously mentioned, we have used compliance as trichotomized variable in a univariate

analysis to explore if the trends are constant as a kind of sensitivity analysis (Table 3). In the
trichotomized variable sub-optimal compliance was further divided in two groups: the partial
compliant group (scores 20–23) and the poor or no compliant group (scores below 20). Partial
compliance was reported by 36 people and, poor by 8 individuals. Table 3 shows the comparison of
optimal and partial compliance with the poor. Compared with poor compliance partial compliance
was related to gender; more male patients reported poor compliance (OR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.65).
Increased concerns related to lower compliance (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.69–0.99) as current smoking
also did (OR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03–0.84). Living with others were less common among those with poor
compliance compared to those with partial and optimal compliance (Table 3). Concerning the quality of
life subscales, the single most important was that associated with vision problems with an OR 7.72 for
optimal and 5.33 for partial compliance. Other important relations were found between mental status
(SSQOL-T OR: 3.31), energy (SSQOL-E OR: 1.90) and mood (SSQOL-MD OR: 2.17) (Table 3). Family
and social participation SSQOL subscales exhibited borderline significance while were interrelated
with family support (Table 3). All variables exhibited a p-value <0.200 were included to multivariate
modelling (data not shown in Table). Compared to those with poor compliance, three variable reached
statistically significant level for optimal compliance, in multivariate analysis: the medication necessity
(OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.04 to 4.57); the medication concerns (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.99) and in a
borderline level the doctor–patient communication (OR: 3.41, 95% CI: 0.80 to 14.50). As expected, due
to the low sample sizes between the poor/no and partial compliance categories, the comparison did
not reach statistically significant level in any of the study variables. However, medication necessity,
medication concerns and doctor–patient communication showed similar trends (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 0.93
to 4.02; OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.05; and 1.96, 95% CI: 0.45 to 8.45, respectively).

Table 3. Univariate analysis of factors affecting the level of compliance (optimal or partial vs. poor/no)
of stroke patients.

Adherence
Study Variable Optimal Partial
OR 95%LL 95%UL OR 95%LL 95%UL
Age (years) 1.01 0.97 1.05 1.00 0.92 1.08
Gender (RC = females) 1.00 0.92 1.09 0.11 0.02 0.65
Living with others 12.71 2.61 62.05 6.20 1.16 33.17
Number of children 0.80 0.47 1.78 1.41 0.63 3.14
Education (RC = Higher)
Primary-secondary 1.54 0.34 6.90 1.56 0.32 7.70
Current Smoker 0.19 0.04 1.00 0.15 0.03 0.84
Support in medication 0.33 0.08 1.44 0.33 0.07 1.62
SSQOL
Self-care (SC) 1.21 0.51 2.91 2.40 0.72 7.99
Vision (V) 7.72 2.82 21.16 5.33 1.86 15.3
Language (L) 1.24 0.62 2.48 1.38 0.64 2.97
Mobility (M) 0.97 0.43 2.15 1.56 0.60 3.86
Work/Productivity (W) 1.08 0.56 2.11 1.69 0.78 3.67
Upper Extremity function
1.07 0.50 2.32 1.55 0.64 3.77
(UE)
Thinking (T) 3.31 1.63 6.74 1.41 0.71 2.81
Personality (P) 1.89 0.93 3.85 1.64 0.77 3.45
Mood (MD) 2.17 1.02 4.64 1.78 0.79 4.00
Family roles (FR) 1.78 0.97 3.28 1.72 0.88 3.37
Social roles (SR) 1.80 0.98 3.32 1.76 0.91 3.41
Energy (E) 1.90 1.06 3.39 1.65 0.90 3.05
All subscales 2.18 0.92 5.16 2.31 0.89 6.05
FSS 1.13 1.01 1.26 1.06 0.96 1.18
BMQ Necessity 1.32 1.05 1.68 1.20 0.95 1.53
BMQ Concern 0.76 0.64 0.90 0.83 0.69 0.99
IPQ Total 0.98 0.92 1.04 0.98 0.92 1.05
CS-SRM 2.57 1.56 4.32 1.27 0.82 1.97
RC = Reference Category; in bold: p < 0.05; in shading: variables with p < 0.05 in multivariate multinomial analysis.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 7 of 11

In the final multivariate modeling the dichotomized outcome variable (i.e., MARS-5 scores above
23 as optimal and all the others as sub-optimal compliance) was used. All variables under study
on treatment compliance exhibited a p-value <0.200 were included to univariate and multivariate
modelling (Table 4). The most important relations with compliance were found for mental state
(SSQOL-T score) with weighted OR 5.14 (95% CI: 2.64 to 10); good doctor–patient relationship (CS-SRM
scale) with weighted OR 1.96 (95% CI: 1.35 to 2.85) and the perceived need for medication with
weighted OR 1.29 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.56) (Table 4). The work /productivity quality of life was inversely
associated with compliance (OR (95% CI): 0.44 (0.23 to 0.82)) (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariate modelling of study variables on treatment compliance (optimal vs. all other) of
stroke patients.

Full Model * Final Model *

Study Variable 95% 95%
OR 95% LL p OR 95% LL p
UL UL
Living with others 2.11 0.24 18.42 NS
Disease duration (y) 0.88 0.76 1.03 0.115
SSQOL
Vision (V) 2.30 0.66 8.04 0.191
Mobility (M) 0.46 0.11 1.98 NS
Work/Productivity (W) 0.45 0.15 1.33 0.150 0.44 0.23 0.82 0.010
Thinking (T) 3.94 1.84 8.46 <0.001 5.14 2.64 10.00 <0.001
Personality (P) 0.89 0.54 1.46 NS
Mood (MD) 0.75 0.22 2.54 NS
Energy (E) 1.35 0.60 3.02 NS
BMQ Necessity 1.26 1.01 1.56 0.038 1.29 1.06 1.56 0.010
BMQ Concern 0.90 0.78 1.04 0.156
CS-CRM 1.76 1.15 2.70 0.009 1.96 1.35 2.85 <0.001
* Full model: all variables with p < 0.2 in univariate analysis; Final model: variables retained in the final model by
forward selection; in bold: p < 0.05; NS: p > 0.20.

4. Discussion
In this research, we have studied the compliance to treatment of 140 patients who have suffered
ischemic stroke and its relation to various variables. The compliance was measured by the Medication
Adherence Report Scale and was treated as dichotomous (optimal or suboptimal) or trichotomous
(optimal, partial, and poor) variable. Most patients (68.6%) were categorized as optimally compliant
while the 25.7% as partially compliant and the 5.7% as of poor compliance.
The patients’ quality of life score (as measured by the SS-QOL questionnaire) was quite high.
These high rates are not uncommon in patients with ischemic stroke and has been associated with high
compliance rates, as in our study [21]. Compliance was related to less visual and mental problems
which have been found to affect compliance [22]. Cognitive disorders have been shown to adversely
affect treatment compliance [9,23] as well as emotional disorders such as anger, fatigue and stress,
confirming the results of this research.
In our study, the age of the patients was not related with compliance, although in another study,
younger stroke patients reported that they often forgot some of their doses [9]. Other studies also
support higher compliance rates in elderly patients [24–26].
We found that male patients showed a lower compliance than women, who hold significantly
more often the caring role compared to men. This finding is consistent with previous research in which
most non-compliant patients were men and often were depended in their wife’s help or relatives’
support [27].
Living alone was related to lower compliance in our study, as other studies have also shown [23,27].
Lack of family support and the feeling of conflict within the family have also found to decrease
compliance in patient treatment [2,28].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 8 of 11

The inverse relation of compliance with time (disease duration) found in our study has
been confirmed in several studies which consist a severe medical care problem in chronic disease
management [27,29–32].
The compliant patients reported more positive beliefs about medicines, deemed them as necessary
("necessity") and less negative beliefs questioning the need and the benefits or worrying about the
damage they might cause ("concerns"), as measured by the BMQ questionnaire. Similar results were
observed in a study from the United Kingdom, in which statistically significant correlation found
between anxiety and reduced compliance [9]. In other studies, non-compliant patients reported lower
scores on the need and benefits and higher ones on concerns [27,33].
We did not find a significant relation between the perception of the disease (as measured by
IPQ questionnaire) and compliance. Several studies have also found stronger correlations between
medication beliefs than disease perceptions [34,35]. This is also consistent with the extended model of
Leventhal (2011), according to which perceptions of the disease is directly related to compliance but
the beliefs about medication are often stronger [36].
The relation of compliance with the doctor–patient communication is well established. Numerous
studies have emphasized that the effective communication between patient and doctor as well
as the reduction of any maladaptive belief that patients have about health or illness is of large
importance in patient compliance [18,37–41]. Moreover, the need to optimize care under the increasing
pressures of ageing, multi-morbidity, disease chronicity is constantly increasing. Within a primary
healthcare setting the implementation of chronic care model interventions improved outcomes and
patient compliance with treatment. However, their implementation is restricted by various factors.
Considerable resources are needed to support implementation and sustainability and human factors
played essential roles since both healthcare providers should be prepared for the implementation,
and patients should be supported to receive care changes [42]. In this context and under the initiative
of people-centered and integrated care, the role of care manager (i.e., specially trained nurses) seem
effective to empower patients to make lifestyle changes and to achieve better compliance to treatment
and care recommendations [43].
A noteworthy finding in our study was that those patients reported better quality of life in the
domain of work and productivity and in a lesser extent also to mobility were far less compliant. This
underlies the need to focus on these patients when returning to work and to monitor them during
the whole recovery process. So, in addition to the doctor–patient relationship the occupational health
services, where available, should continuously assesses the progress and medication adherence of
these vulnerable productive people.
The specific health care system and study setting may influence generalizability of our findings.
The use of self-report measures for all variables under study is a limitation of our research design;
however, is very common in this type of research in which is difficult to utilize additional resources in
an outpatient setting. The main limitation is the low sample size given the high number of variables
collected. We have treated this weakness by applying a p-value limit from univariate logistic analysis
(p < 0.200) in a backward logistic regression modelling instead of a complete logistic regression model.
Further research should consider these limitations in order to increase the utility of findings and
application to practice.

5. Conclusions
According to our results adherence to treatment in patients with stroke associated with a variety
of social, medical, and personal factors. The disease perceived severity, the doctor–patient relationship
and the patient’s perception of medication need were all related to compliance. Interventions aimed at
compliance are complex and include self-monitoring schemes, counseling and supportive care. In a
patient-centered and integrated care, personal beliefs of patients should be carefully considered, and
healthcare providers need to recognize the concerns patients have for medicines, stressing the need of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 9 of 11

these benefits, making the shape simple and adjusted to the lifestyle of the patient, with a view to the
reduction of a secondary stroke episode.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.C. and E.C.A.; Data curation, E.C.; Formal analysis, E.C. and
E.C.A.; Investigation, E.C.; Methodology, E.C.A.; Project administration, E.C. and E.C.A.; Supervision, E.C.A.;
Visualization, E.C.A.; Writing—original draft, E.C.; Writing—review & editing, E.C.A.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We thanks all the participants and Georgakakis George for his support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Strong, K.; Mathers, C.; Bonita, R. Preventing stroke: Saving lives around the world. Lancet Neurol. 2007, 6,
182–187. [CrossRef]
2. DiMatteo, M.R. Variations in patient’s adherence to medical recommendations: A quantitative review of 50
years of research. Med. Care 2004, 42, 200–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Wang, Y.; Kapellusch, J.; Gard, A. Important factors influencing the return to work after stroke. Work 2014,
47, 553–559.
4. Wolfenden, B.; Grace, M. Returning to work after stroke: A review. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2009, 32, 93–97.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Mukherjee, D.; Patil, C.G. Epidemiology and the global burden of stroke. World Neurosurg. 2011, 76, 85–90.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Slark, J. Adherence to secondary prevention. Strategies after stroke: A review of the literature. Br. J. Neurosci.
Nurs. 2010, 6, 282–286. [CrossRef]
7. Chaudhry, H.J.; McDermott, B. Recognizing and improving patient non-adherence to statin therapy. Curr.
Atheroscler. Rep. 2008, 10, 19–24. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, Y.; Wu, D.; Wang, Y.; Ma, R.; Wang, C.; Zhao, W. A survey of adherence to secondary ischemic stroke
prevention. Neurol. Res. 2006, 28, 16–20. [CrossRef]
9. O’Carroll, R.; Whittaker, J.; Hamilton, B.; Johnston, M.; Sudlow, C.; Dennis, M. Predictors of adherence to
secondary preventive medication in stroke patients. Ann. Behav. Med. 2011, 41, 383–390. [CrossRef]
10. Williams, L.S.; Weinberger, M.; Clark, D.O.; Harris, L.E.; Biller, J. Development of a stroke-specific of life
scale. Stroke 1999, 30, 1362–1369. [CrossRef]
11. Kapreli, E.; Paplamata, Z.; Damplia, Z.; Strimpakos, N.; Paras, G. Reliability and responsiveness of the Greek
version of the stroke-specific quality of life Questionnaire (SSQOL-GR): A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the
3rd International Congress on Neurology and Neuroepidemiology, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 21–23 November 2013;
Volume 41, pp. 223–316.
12. Tselebis, A.; Anagnostopoulou, T.; Bratis, D.; Moulou, A.; Maria ASikaras, C.; Ilias, I. The 13 item Family
Support Scale: Reliability and validity of the Greek translation in a sample of Greek health care professionals.
Asia Pac. Fam. Med. 2011, 10, 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Bratis, D.; Tselebis, A.; Sikaras, C.; Moulou, A.; Giotakis, K.; Zoumakis, E.; Ilias, I. Alexithymia and its
association with burnout, depression and family support among Greek nursing stuff. Hum. Resour. Health
2009, 7, 72. [CrossRef]
14. Horne, R.; Weinman, J.; Hankins, M. The beliefs about medicines Questionnaire: The development and
Evaluation of a New Method for Assessing the cognitive Representation of Medication. Psychol. Health 1999,
14, 1–24. [CrossRef]
15. Komninos, I.; Micheli, K.; Roumeliotaki, T.; Horne, R. Adaptation and validation of the beliefs about
medicines questionnaire (BMQ) in primary care patients in Greece. Eur. J. Pers. Cent. Health Care 2013, 1,
224–231. [CrossRef]
16. Broadbent, E.; Petrie, K.; Main, J.; Weinman, J. The brief Illness Perception Questionnaire. J. Psychosom. Res.
2006, 60, 631–633. [CrossRef]
17. Moss-Morris, R.; Weinman, J.; Petrie, K.J.; Horne, R.; Cameron, L.D.; Buick, D. The revised Illness Perception
Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol. Health 2002, 17, 1–16. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 10 of 11

18. Karademas, E.C.; Bakouli, A.; Bastounis, A.; Kallergi, F.; Tamtami, P.; Theofilou, M. Illness perceptions,
illness-related problems, subjective health and the role of perceived primal threat: Preliminary results. J.
Health Psychol. 2008, 13, 1021–1029. [CrossRef]
19. Phillips, A.; Leventhal, H.; Leventhal, E.A. Physician’s communication of the common-sense self-regulation
model results in greater reported adherence than physicians use of interpersonal skills. Br. J. Psychol. 2012,
17, 244–257.
20. Karademas, E.; Paschali, A.; Hadjulis, M.; Papadimitriou, A. Maladaptive health beliefs, illness-related
self-regulation and the role of the information provided by physicians. J. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 994–1003.
[CrossRef]
21. Suqisawa, H. Treatment compliance and subjective well-being among post-stroke patients. Jpn. J. Public
Health 1991, 38, 70–78.
22. Tatemichi, T.K. Congitive impairment after stroke: Frequency, patterns and retation-ships to fuctional
abilities. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 1994, 57, 202–207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Coetzee, N.; Andrewes, D.; Khan, F.; Hale, T.; Jenkings, L. Predicting compliance with treatment following
stroke: A new model of adherence following rehabilitation. Brain Impair. 2008, 9, 122–139. [CrossRef]
24. Sappok, T.; Faulstich, A.; Stuckert, E.; Kruck, H.; Marx, P.; Koennecke, H.C. Compliance with secondary
prevention of ischemic stroke: A prospective evaluation. Stroke 2001, 32, 1884–1889. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Rolnick, S.; Pawloski, P.; Hedblom, B.; Asche, S.; Bruzek, R. Patient characteristics associated with medication
adherence. Clin. Med. Res. 2013, 11, 54–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Rajpura, J.; Nayak, R. Medication adherence in a sample of elderly suffering from hypertension: Evaluating
the influence of illness perceptions, treatment beliefs and illness burden. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 2014, 20,
58–65. [CrossRef]
27. Sjolander, M.; Eriksson, M.; Glader, E.-L. The association between patients’ beliefs about medicines and
adherence to drug treatment after stroke: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e003551.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Zhang, H.; Qian, H.Z.; Meng, S.Q.; Shu, M.; Gao, Y.Z.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, S.M.; Hong, M.; Xiong, R.H.
Psychological distress, social support and medication adherence in patients with ischemic stroke in the
mainland of China. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 35, 405–410. [CrossRef]
29. Glader, E.; Sjolander, M.; Eriksson, M.; Lunbderg, M. Persistent use of secondary preventive drugs declines
rapidly during the first 2 years after stroke. Stroke 2010, 41, 397–401. [CrossRef]
30. Jin, J.; Sklar, G.E.; Sen Oh, V.M.; Li, S.C. Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: A review from the patient’s
perspective. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2008, 4, 269–286.
31. Osterberg, L.; Blaschke, T. Adherence to medication. N. Engl. J. Med. 2005, 353, 487–497. [CrossRef]
32. Dunbar, J.; Mortimer-Stephens, M.K. Treatment adherence in chronic disease. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001, 54
(Suppl. 1), S57–S60. [CrossRef]
33. Chambers, J.; O’Carroll, R.; Hamilton, B.; Whittaker, J.; Johnston, M.; Sudlow, C.; Dennis, M. Adherence to
medication in stroke survivors: A qualititative comparison of low and high adherers. Br. J. Health Psychol.
2011, 16, 592–609. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Byrne, M.; Walsh, J.; Murphy, A.W. Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: Patient beliefs and
health-related behaviour. J. Psychosom. Res. 2005, 58, 403–415. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Schuz, B.; Marx, C.; Wurm, S. Medication beliefs predict medication adherence in older adults with multiple
illnesses. J. Psychosom. Res. 2011, 70, 179–187. [CrossRef]
36. Leventhal, H.; Leventhal, E.; Breland, J. Congitive science speaks to the “common-sense” of chronic illness
management. Ann. Behav. Med. 2011, 41, 152–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Elliott, R.A.; Ross-Degnan, D.; Adams, A.S.; Safran, D.G.; Soumerai, S.B. Strategies for coping in a complex
world: Adherence behaviour among older adults with chronic illness. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2007, 22, 805–810.
[CrossRef]
38. Kerse, N.; Buctow St Mainows, A.; Arroll, B. Physician-Patient Relationship and Medication Comlpiance: A
Primary Care Investigation. Ann. Fam. Med. 2004, 2, 455–461. [CrossRef]
39. Zolnierek, K.; DiMatteo, M. Physician communication and patient Adherence to treatment: A Meta-analysis.
Med. Care 2009, 47, 826–834. [CrossRef]
40. Stavropoulou, C. Non-adherence to medication and doctor–patient relationship: Evidence from a European
Survey. Patient Educ. Couns. 2011, 83, 7–13. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 196 11 of 11

41. Gabay, G. Perceived control over health, communication and patient-physician trust. Patient Educ. Couns.
2015, 98, 1550–1557. [CrossRef]
42. Davy, C.; Bleasel, J.; Liu, H.; Tchan, M.; Ponniah, S.; Brown, A. Factors influencing the implementation of
chronic care models: A systematicliterature review. BMC Fam. Pract. 2015, 16, 102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Ciccone, M.M.; Aquilino, A.; Cortese, F.; Scicchitano, P.; Sassara, M.; Mola, E.; Rollo, R.; Caldarola, P.;
Giorgino, F.; Pomo, V.; et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of a disease and care management model in the
primary health care system for patients with heart failure and diabetes (Project Leonardo). Vasc. Health Risk
Manag. 2010, 6, 297–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).